ANNA KARENINA

SYNOPSIS:
Leo Tolstoy’s tale of love and morality in high places (in
pre-revolution Russia) follows the doomed romance between the
beautiful Anna Karenina and Count Alexei Vronsky. Anna sacrifices
her position as highly placed social wife and mother to follow
her heart to Vronksy, shocking Russian society in the process.
Their liaison is contrasted with the romance and marriage of two
of their friends, Levin and Kitty, who find increasing happiness
and fulfilment over time.

"This third screen version of Tolstoy’s novel is a
visual feast, with breathtakingly beautiful settings, stunning
cinematography and a sensitive performance from the beautiful and
talented Sophie Marceau. Marceau brings a warm sensuality to the
title role, previously played by Greta Garbo and Vivien Leigh in
1935 and 1948 respectively and James Fox gives a satisfying
performance as the jealous husband. But sadly there is much about
the film that leaves me dissatisfied and frustrated -
namely the lack of development in both Vronsky’s character
and the ill-fated love affair. Somehow Vronsky’s charms are
none too apparent. Why the delectable Marceau is so smitten by and
sacrifices everything for him is never satisfactorily explained
emotionally. The script seems to be trying so hard to fit the
entire novel into the screenplay that the jumps in time and place
appear disjointed. The varied accents of origin from the cast,
together with occasional Russian language dialogue (subtitled),
create a lack of unity to the production, and divide, rather than
unite it."Louise Keller

"I agree with Louise - almost entirely; perhaps the Garbo
version (which I saw but not in the year of its production, I
hasten to say) spoilt me. Yes, Marceau is gorgeous and effective,
but after Garbo’s fabulous screen mystique, nobody can be
Anna K for me again. Silly old sausage aren’t I? Or is it
something more? You decide. As for this film, I can understand
Bernard Rose’s earnest intent with the novel, but I am
surprised that Mel Gibson and Brian Davies of Icon Productions
(who put up/found the money) didn’t exercise more
stringency. In particular, I found the jump cut from hesitant
Anna to naked lover far too abrupt: we had to assume too much,
rather like intercourse without foreplay. Likewise with the
marriage of Levin and Kitty, which comes on us like a badly
subbed feature in a woman’s magazine. Worst of all, for me,
Sean Bean and Sophie Marceau don’t have the screen chemistry
to explain any of the enormous passions; Bean, good as he is, is
the wrong type, anyway. Sorry, darlings, but this just LOOKS
wonderful."
Andrew L. Urban

This lavish remake of Tolstoy's classic novel is the first
American version to be filmed in Russia. Like its predecessors,
it focuses more on the romantic and tragic aspects of the story
and ignores the political and philosophical undertones of the
original. And unlike previous film incarnations of the rambling
tale, this version is flimsier than most, adopting a contemporary
Mills and Boone approach with very under-developed black and
white characters, instead of flashes of grey. Tolstoy is a
complex writer, and his Anna Karenina remains a fascinating and
deeply tragic work with mighty philosophical undertones enhancing
its narrative. It's a novel that lends itself effectively to more
in-depth cinematic treatment, and while Bernard Rose may be a fine
visualist, his film is slight and predictable. Its other
glaring weakness is the miscasting of France's Sophie Marceau in
the title role. Apart from a French accent amidst the British
voices around her, her performance is too thin and uninspiring to
make us mildly interested in her plight. She's in fact emerges as
an insufferable bore and her rendition is as superficial and
simplistic as the film as a whole. Sean Bean's Vronsky is just as
dull and wooden, while Alfred Molina is the film's only strength
as the more philosophical Levin. Filmically, there are some
strengths amidst the ruins of this production, such as the superb
cinematography and production design, which do capture the upper
echelons of 19th century Russian society quite beautifully. But
it's all on the surface, as the film dawdles its way through an
adaptation of a masterful book, which never comes close in being
truthful to the original work.
Paul Fischer